Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Monday December 03, 2012 @05:03AM
from the don't-lose-your-head dept.

jamaicaplain writes "Reuters reports that 'Iran has suspended the death sentence for a computer programmer convicted on charges of running a pornographic website after he "repented for his actions," his lawyer was quoted as saying on Sunday. Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian citizen and Canadian resident, was arrested in 2008 while visiting relatives in Iran, according to Amnesty International. Although Iranian authorities accused him of running a pornography site, Amnesty has said the charges appear to stem from a software program created by Malekpour that was used without his knowledge to post pornographic images.'"
It's not clear if he'll ever be released, however.

This is like sentencing a truck designer to death because trucks are used to transport alcohol.

But in fundamentalist societies like Iran and some of the southern US states, intelligence is not a factor in getting into power. So these people don't see the logical discontinuity between the person writing software (or designing trucks) and the actual other person using the software (or the truck) to do something illegal under their laws./anonymous because of troll baiting glib southern US state comment

It seems to me that charisma is much more important for getting ahead in politics and business.

Technically, it's sexual attractiveness. Charisma is just a generic term for someone that is sexually attractive as well as knowing how to use it to their advantage. And intelligence is a factor for getting into power... just not by itself. Intelligence alone has no proven evolutionary advantage (that is, the chance of passing your genes on to the next generation). I know many people who have intelligence but lack attractive features, and they are amongst the most miserable people I know. It allows them to be aware of exactly how the world works, in every detail, and to also be forced to be constantly aware of how small they are within it. The Total Perspective Vortex isn't just a plot device for intelligent people: for them, they've already sat in the chair.

No, I'm telling you that attractiveness is subjective. What you and I find attractive may well differ, despite popular opinion. You may find a timid, shy person attractive, whereas I may find a powerful and confident person attractive; Neither has anything to do with physical appearance, but apparently you can only be "attractive" if you have big boobs or six-pack abs.

If I have any agenda, it's that I want people to form their own opinions and not rely on having them spoon fed to them by advertising gurus

No, I'm telling you that attractiveness is subjective. What you and I find attractive may well differ, despite popular opinion. You may find a timid, shy person attractive, whereas I may find a powerful and confident person attractive; Neither has anything to do with physical appearance, but apparently you can only be "attractive" if you have big boobs or six-pack abs.

I think most people would agree that e.g. the Dalei Lama or Queen Elizabeth II are charismatic leaders

Not to say you are wrong that there are exceptions to the rule, but the exceptions you picked are particularly bad at representing your position: The queen was chosen because of blood line; Royal families don't have the same competitive pressures the everyday person has. Likewise for the Dalei Lama, who was, for somewhat different reasons, also not subject to those pressures.

I didn't intend to connect charisma with any result in beeing chosen for something or not. I just picked examples of charismatic persons that (by most standards) wouldn't be considered as sexually attractive. Of course I know people where charisma and good looks go together, but I also know people who are only one of both.

But examples from my personal life would be rather difficult to follow....

The military has something called "command presence", which I'm certain could be related to charisma. Like leadership, some people are just born with it, some people learn it, while most people never get close enough to it to even begin to understand it.

I'd say the 'not Dubya' is pretty correct. The 'eye candy' and 'messiahs' part are the usualy conservative trolling though. People generally did want away from anything associated with Bush, including his party. As such, dems could have run the crypt keeper (Hillary?) and still won. Fortunately for the Republicans, she's 2016's candidate.

Regardless of your political views, I think huge majority of people could agree that if they watched some of Obama's speeches from 2008 elections, he was extremely charismatic speaker. That's completely out of proportion to how sexually attractive that 47-years old career politician was. Actually, most people would probably agree that he appeared a lot more charismatic in 2008 than in 2012 though there is very little apparent reason why either his intelligence or his sexual attractiveness would have decreased that significantly. Similarly, I know a lot of people who I consider both attractive and intelligent but would never call charismatic.

Charisma is your force of personality, which does certainly have a positive effect on your sexual attractiveness but doesn't depend on it.

I never did get the claim that Obama was a charismatic speaker. He spoke haltingly and because he never managed to get around to saying anything of substance I found his speeches extremely boring. I could see the charm in Bill Clinton (though I disagreed with him most of the time), but I don't see any charm in Obama.

Intelligence doesn't really seem to be a factor for getting into power anywhere, so I'm not quite sure why you singled out any one area of the world in particular.

It seems to me that charisma is much more important for getting ahead in politics and business.

You are confusing politics with "rational behavior" (defined as that which will bring the most benefit to the electorate). Congressmen and senators represent those who paid to get them elected. The voters are a distant second. Still, you have to get the votes in order to advance your patrons' interests, so pandering to superstitious yokels who fear that granting equal rights to homosexuals threatens "the sanctity of marriage" is a given. Nothing solidifies that block like fear. Fortunately, we still have a

Charisma is a kind of intelligence. Reading people's faces and body language, figuring out what they're thinking and why, figuring out what you can do or say to address their concerns without getting yourself in trouble with people who have different concerns. The charisma needed for success in politics requires a lot of complex reasoning and insight. Unfortunately, I think it is a kind of intelligence that tends benefit the individual far more than it benefits society.

Religion is another area where being charismatic makes you more likely to be a leader. Talks given by charismatic people are much more interesting and inspiring. The guy in charge of the guys with guns had better be likeable and commanding, otherwise one of the guys with guns will take over.

But in fundamentalist societies like Iran and some of the southern US states

Merely having fundamentalists (who aren't at all equivalent) in your society isn't the same as having a fundamentalist society. Having someone in the neighborhood who occasionally advocates prayer in school or creationism isn't the same as official organs of the state executing people for sponsoring pornography and rigidly holding to blatantly religious law.

This is like sentencing a truck designer to death because trucks are used to transport alcohol.

But in fundamentalist societies like Iran and some of the southern US states, intelligence is not a factor in getting into power. So these people don't see the logical discontinuity between the person writing software (or designing trucks) and the actual other person using the software (or the truck) to do something illegal under their laws./anonymous because of troll baiting glib southern US state comment

Um, right. If I had a dime for every time a southern US state executed someone for creating a product used without his knowledge to do something the religious elite thought horrific, I'd have.... nothing, I think.

It's worth noting that in this particular country, porn can consist of people showing a little bit of nose. Women are pulled off the streets all the time for this kind of thing and beaten. Foreign women are well-advised to be aware of local customs prior to travel, as it can result in beatings, arrest, or being forcibly stripped and your clothing replaced with something more "decent" according to their laws.

No, he's being quite accurate in the "pulled off the streets" part, as I believe he's referring to Iran's basiji militias, or at least the subset of them who go out on "morality" patrols to make sure that women are "properly" covered, aren't wearing makeup, aren't walking with unrelated men, etc. You're right in that the standards they enforce are a little less strict than those in Saudi Arabia (just a headscarf being required, rather than a full-body chador), but the basiji are much more likely than their Saudi counterparts (the mutaween) to use violence on the spot. It can be something merely humiliating, like shaving the woman's head if her scarf does not completely cover her hair, or a beating, all the way up to things like pulling out her fingernails with pliers (if she has on nail polish) or throwing acid in her face. I'm certainly not going to praise the mutaween or the Saudi religious laws, but at least there you're more likely to wind up in front of a judge and be able to plead your case.

As far as porn goes, "showing a little bit of nose" isn't porn in Iran, but they definitely do execute people for making porn (either acting in it or being part of the production process).

Incidentally, the only reason for the headscarves vs. chador type of differences are due to the Iranian leadership having to work at stuffing the secularization genie back into the bottle, whereas in Saudi Arabia it never got out -- Iran had an ongoing women's movement since early in the 20th century. It's not through any lack of desire on the mullah's part to have it that way. Even the strongest dictatorship can only roll things back so fast as long as people remember the freedoms that are being suppressed.

the basiji are much more likely than their Saudi counterparts (the mutaween) to use violence on the spot. It can be something merely humiliating, like shaving the woman's head if her scarf does not completely cover her hair, or a beating, all the way up to things like pulling out her fingernails with pliers (if she has on nail polish) or throwing acid in her face.

Can you give any references for that? Preferably from the more recent (as in, 90s-00s) timeframe, not during and immediately after the Islamic Revolution.

The reason why I ask is that you can see plenty of photos from modern Iran with women wearing scarfs not completely covering their hair, and they don't look harassed. Which seems to imply that what you describe does not happen often.

Incidentally, the only reason for the headscarves vs. chador type of differences are due to the Iranian leadership having to work at stuffing the secularization genie back into the bottle, whereas in Saudi Arabia it never got out -- Iran had an ongoing women's movement since early in the 20th century.

The difference is actually because they subscribe to different schools of Islamic thought. Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi, which is

I posted this image search link [bing.com] in another post hereabouts. Note how most official pictures, as well those from higher-profile events (e.g. Iranian female sportsmen) do conform to "no hair visible" guideline, but most random pics of girls on the streets etc have some hair prominently visible.

I don't doubt that Basij do occasionally harass girls who don't strictly conform to the guidelines; it just doesn't seem as pervasive as it is in Saudi Arabia, judging by public photos with so many women subtly flauntin

No doubt. I think Iran is one of the Majority Muslim countries that would likely legitimately go secular if given a chance (then again, there is no guarantee of that). The people have lived under the most brutal sort of religious tyranny for so long. Many voting the new batch of fundamentalists in with this new "Arab Spring" have no clue what it's like. They'll soon learn, unfortunately at the expense of women, gays, and christians.

Don't visit any Muslim country, EVER! For that matter, never ever visit any country where the local laws and your history and lifestyle conflict. Don't drink in an alcohol free country. Not even if it is offered.

Don't smuggle or use Drugs in the US of A not even if some states now allow it. As a foreigner, no local senator is going to burn his fingers on you to get you free from the federal government.

Don't take "teen" porn into a nation that has higher age limits for porn. Don't take manga/anime into such countries either, the laws might not be enforced always but you don't want to be the exception to the rule.

Yes it sucks but a foreign nation doesn't owe you anything. Right now in Saudi Arabia, a young foreign girl is in jail for life NOT because the COURT wants her to be in jail but because under Sharia law, until the parents of the baby she supervised when it died (at no fault of her) forgive her, she remains in jail. The police, medical examiners and court have said she is not to blame but Sharia law rules otherwise and if you go to such a backward place, you agree to be bound by it. So. DON'T.

And it ain't even hard stuff, do you know that on the whole it is not a good idea to "argue" with an American cop. In Holland it is perfectly normal. In the US? NO! And you might get away with it in a tourist trap but in a southern state?

99% of the time, nothing will happen and then it does and you get caned for dropping chewing gum on the sidewalk.

It is one of the things you got to consider really carefully when considering a job in another country, does that country legal system and culture conflict with yours? Both the US and Holland for instance got stoners but Dutch stoners don't risk jail with every joint. You might be going to work in an industry where drug use is considered normal but will that cop searching your car feel the same? Hell, even ordinary smokers better consider the smoking laws in a foreign country.

If you are one of those people who needs a beer at the end of the day, is a Muslim controlled country really worth it? If you want to wash your car on sundays better stay out of bible belt areas.

Are you gay, a liberal or have a brain? Stay out of the South, you are not welcome. Don't think New York, Philidelpia and LA are all of the US, some parts are as dangerous as the most backwards Muslim nations and worse. Because at least most Muslim nations are ruled by dictators who usually don't want trouble (Arab Spring so far has only made the Arab nations less liberal and less secular) and whose police (Turkey's military used to heavy handedly enforce its secular system as set up by Ata Turk, the democractic system so far is shifting the country to be a pure Muslim state instead) might not like your liberal arse but have strict orders not to allow stuff to happen unless someone in power needs an incident. No such protection exists in the deep South.

For that matter, any southern republican thinking about leaving for Australia because a black man is in the white house and you just hate that socialist Obamacare? Ooops, Australia is far more to the left then any part of the USA. For that matter, all western countries are. A redneck won't be at home anywhere else. Better realize that Philadelphia is redneck heaven before taking a job in Europe. Or you won't last long.

Be wary when travelling, you are entering an other countries legal system and culture and you don't want to be an example to other travellers.

In the UK, if you've done nothing wrong, roll the window down 20mm, turn up your radio, smile with the biggest show of teeth possible. The copper will ask you to get out your car if it's raining, snowing, or the wind chill feels under -20c. Procede to walk around the copper's car kicking the tyres like an expert mechanic.

Always ask why you've been pulled over. Expect the answer to be "Just a routine check, sir". Follow that up with "Why can't you find a proper job?", "Haven't you got any real criminals to find?", or "Were you bullied as a child?". Expect 20 questions about coins in your wallet, silver foil in the footwell, and the reason you're talking so much. Spell your name when asked, even if it's a common name such as "Smith". Smoke'em if you've got 'em - Coppers love the smell. If the copper asks if it's OK for them to smoke, tell them no, as you've just given up, and you hate the smell. If they fake recognition by means of the question "Don't I know you?", reply with "I think I know your sister".

If you've done something wrong, get out the car. Keep the copper talking for as long a possible but don't talk about your crime. Try and confuse him (or her) by using long words such as "elaborate" and "concoction". "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.

No, they won't. They'll yell at you in a very unpleasant way and tell you to get the f*ck back in the car. I did this as a teen when I didn't know any better intending just to be cooperative. I was harshly, but merely verbally, educated that if you want to be cooperative, stay in the car and put your hands where they can be seen.

I've been pulled over dozens of times, all for minor speeding offenses and nearly all in my youth. Rarely have I even had the cop mad at me. Never have I felt like I was in dan

Does arguing with cops work in the Netherlands? I didn't see any the one time I was there. I got the impression they weren't all that necessary, speeding was enforced by cameras and I suspect pickpocketing and bike theft are just kind of accepted as they would be too hard to prevent. Here in TX the police are nervous at every stop as they might really get shot. Staying in the car and moving slowly, speaking politely though not obsequeously, and just generally not being a jerk, results in a verabal warni

I'm pretty sure that the half dozen Amsterdam cops that knocked the guy to the ground just in front of my wife while yelling "Politie!, Politie!" were not in a very talkative mood. I didn't even make a point about how the one who almost knocked her over when rushing in to grab the guy could have been a little more considerate. I just gathered my wife and responded that I'd willingly move on like they were telling everyone to, if they's just let us by...

The washing the car on Sunday thing, what's the deal with that? I've never heard of this? (I'm from Australia - we seem to have a lot less religion here)What would happen if you wash your car on a Sunday in a bible belt area? Nasty looks? Egged car? Is the expectation you should be at church?

I do admit, I found it fascinating some stores in the US won't sell liquor on Sundays or Saturdays or after 9:00pm or some such due to church run states, what a disgusting joke.

This is complete and utter rubbish. I've been to Iran a number of times, just two weeks ago returning from a two month trip there (with my non-Iranian wife, her second trip to Iran), and I can categorically say that you are utterly wrong. Don't get me wrong - Iran's treatment of women is appalling, but you are way off base here - nothing like what you describe happens. As TapeCutter points out, you're probably thinking about our good friends, who flew planes into the WTC, the Saudis.

In the defense of Britain, that was the subset of the British who were such theocratic wackjobs that they sailed across the Atlantic in a glorified tub and set up shop in a ghastly wilderness hellhole just so that they could enjoy the pleasure of being on the enjoyable side of religious persecution...

It's even funnier than that. They first sailed to Holland, where religious tolerance was already implemented - and so they weren't persecuted there. But they found it to be such a horrible "den of vices" full of "temptations" for their children, that they decided to move to the Colonies where they could actually enforce their morality without interference.

He's not a programmer, and he was not involved in any dating site. He had a site called Avizoon (means SLUT in english). Have you heard of a "dating website" with such name? He was involved in child pornography, abusing private images and films stoled from people's computer using several hired men, and now his lawyer claims he's a programmer!
Let's look at what he calims Malekpour has written: A Perl/PHP program called: Movable Type [wikipedia.org] . As far as I know an American company with the name of Six Apart [movabletype.org] is the developer, and not a stupid porn distributor called Malekpour. See this screenshot [uploadkon.ir] from his website.

Hmmmm....your comment history is a bit short, your slashdot number is a bit high, and you are making quite specific claims about someone.

Care to let us in on the evidence? Evidence from Iran doesn't count, their authorities being on the darker side of human nature. We'll be looking for evidence vetted by respectable third parties. Now cough up or you are spouting BS.

Exactly this. He owned a series of websites. One of them has been a swinger website, the other used to put illegally taken (using hidden cameras) sex videos. I have personally seen the website when it was active. It also contained illegal under-aged sex videos.

It was a disgusting website which possibly ruined many families. Iranian community is sensitive to sex scandals and if a lady is found to have publicly available sexual videos , she may never be able to marry and possible get caught by police and puni

I once watched a video clip of an Iranian girl getting stoned to death by a crowd of people. At one point during the ordeal her dress started to ride up her legs. One of the attackers was very quick to cover up her legs again.Extremely horrific violence: Ok.Semi-nudity: Not ok.

I once watched a video clip of an American helicopter killing a crowd of people, because one of them had a camera in his hand. And it was not a clip from a movie, just like what you've watched. It was a clip from recordings of the Apache helicopter, that was later named Collateeral Murder [collateralmurder.com] by Julian Assange.
So, let's talk about facts, not movies.

You know what's funny? I notice the same attitude in US (I'm from Europe).

The American public is OK with movies showing all and any kind of violence - from "simple" headshots to horrific torture and mutilation. But when the same movie is showing some skin, they have to mention how disgusted they are. I just don't get it.

If you actually lived in the US you might notice that 90% of Americans could give a shit less. There is a small, vocal, minority that will raise a stink over a stray tittay, but that's about it. Also, a graphic headshot will almost always earn a movie an R rating. Then again, there are also times where a an exposed breast will not earn an R rating (e.g. Titanic).

A graphic headshot is never a really a graphic headshot in an American movie. Instead it is special effects being used to simulated a headshot. However when clothes are removed in a movie, it is almost always the case that clothes were really removed during the filming of the movie. I suspect that what matters is not so much how the image appears, but knowledge of how the image was created that bothers American viewers. Women without clothes are depicted in paintings and sculptures very frequently in

Speaking from experience I don't believe it is the same to the viewer. When I was a kid watched many movies in which involved killings. I watched war movies, westerns, Get Smart, etc.. Then one day when I was about 11 a reporter was killed in Central America at a military checkpoint. The morning news show decided to show it. The reporter got out of the car, walked over to the guards. They ordered him to lie face down with his hands on his head. Then they shot him. His body shook. I remember the det

First, I don't remember anyone going crazy about The Watchmen. Apparently it wasn't a big enough deal for me to hear about. Second, it doesn't really contradict what I'm saying. For situations where the real thing is filmed, the rules are stricter. But even when what's going on is fake there are still rules. When there is a lot of fake violence in movies it still gets an R rating. Real violence would likely get an NC-17.

Second, I don't think it is just an American thing. Even in Europe in the mid

If you actually lived in the US you might notice that 90% of Americans could give a shit less.

Those 90% stay quiet and let the small vocal minority have their way. That's not actually any better than having a fundamentalist majority. The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

A minority will always be vocal because they feel they have to be in order to compensate for their lack of numbers. At the same time a majority underestimates the damage a minority can do. You're right that it's the fault of the 90% ultimately, but it's easy to understand how it can happen... In order to effectively counter these groups you need to monitor them and counter their every move. If they complain, you send letters of support. If they boycott, you pledge to buy more, and so on. It's very eas

Actually, it's scary. That someone even think of sexual connotations tells me that they're perverts and creepy as hell. And it's really them we should lock up in a hospital, not hide the breastfeeding mothers or other people exposing bodyparts from people of their ilk.

If their parents, teachers and clergy had let them see nudity and have sex (with themselves or other kids), perhaps they had grown up with less frightening views on nudity and sex.

Though, still, feeling lust for you breast-feeding wife is a weird thing to call a "perversion".

Feeling lust for your wife, pretty much no matter what she's doing, is not a perversion.Feeling lust for your wife because she's breast feeding is.

Then again there are people who get turned on by their spouses urinating or defecating too, because it involves certain body parts. I'm happy to say I'm not that repressed, but can see body parts in a non-sexual context without thinking about sex.

Hygiene factors may alter a direct comparison. If a woman was swinging her tits, lactating hentai gush style in a restaurant and not feeding the child with them. I think you could complain or jack off to it.

Oh ok. So when I have to take a whiz I'll just whip it out in public and let fly and if you get offended then you must be a pervert. After all, I'm not using it for the sexual purpose, I'm doing what nature has dictated so it's perfectly fine right?

Pissing in public [oobject.com] is perfectly acceptable in more developed countries. Only in horribly repressed societies would this be considered a sex crime.

I don't think people from certain countries even realize how ridiculous their antiquated taboos of religious origin appear to others. Putting a swimsuit on a 2 year old? Sitting in a sauna with clothes on? Thinking breastfeeding or urination are sexual acts?

Yeah, but you ignore them. The only reason why our religious lunatics are given any attention is because we have a two party system and the republican party needs to pander to them in order to win an election. If the Republican party thought they could gain more votes from the center by throwing the jesus freaks under the bus it would happen in a second... and it just might. The inverse could easily happen in any number of European states if the right thought they could gain more from the far right than

The UK is plenty conservative [wikipedia.org] (in this respect far worse than the US). In Italy you can get prosecuted for insulting the pope [thetrumpet.com]. Poland too [wikipedia.org]. Much of Eastern Europe, Italy, and even Spain and Portugal can be frighteningly homophobic depending on where you are, even when compared to the most rural areas in the States. There are many places in Europe I would not take my partner, while there are very few in the states I would feel unsafe in, even in the deep south. Do keep in mind that passing a few hate-spe

The difference is, mentioning how disgusted someone is of something is freedom of speech. They don't arrest you for it, and they sure as shit don't stone you for it. It isn't banned... And the government doesn't have laws against it... (sure some laws used to exist... but they used to exist in Europe too.)

Being okay with fake violence is not some "sick obsession"... I never understood why that is always mentioned as if it's barbaric and backwards. The funny part is, there are plenty of violent movies with n

You know what's funny? I notice the same attitude in US (I'm from Europe).

The American public is OK with movies showing all and any kind of violence - from "simple" headshots to horrific torture and mutilation. But when the same movie is showing some skin, they have to mention how disgusted they are. I just don't get it.

Not sure what decade you live in, but in the current timeline, USA shows a lot of movies with naked people getting killed. Sex & violence is how it's done these days. Maybe in the 50's we were squeamish with seeing naked people, but as of 2012, I can assure you that is no longer the case. We enjoy our sex and our violence and if it's together, bonus!

This is not inconsistent! Parents know that their children aren't going to go out maiming and murdering people (even is that child is an obvious sociopath, the parents will "know" that they couldn't possibly do that). Parents also know that given the slightest opportunity, the vast majority of teenage boys (and far more of the girls than our society is willing to admit) will have as absolutely much sex as possible. There's nothing inconsistent with reducing exposure to the one that you are actually worri

This is +4 Insightful? I could buy plenty of movies with boobs showing at the supermarket. "R" rating includes pretty much everything except prolonged full frontal nudity and/or hardcore sex. In some cases, enough people get off that here in the United States wenominate it for an Oscar [imdb.com].

Heck, if boobage is all you're looking for, just turn on some cable TV [imdb.com]. Don't act like you have to travel to the naughty side of town for that.

Please, explain why I can buy the "Saw" series of movies, where the point is to simulate intense psychological torture and often physical mutilation prior to execution in spectacularly visceral fashion, in the local supermarket next to Spongebob boxed sets, but in order to see a a simulated act of completely natural physical affection between two consenting adults I would have to go to an 'adult shop'.

When my kids were young and were outside of America one time they went to see "Transformers". The theatre showed a trailer for "Saw" before the Transformers movie started. The kids were pretty upset by it. I can't imagine what the theatre owner was thinking showing that trailer right before a movie based on a set of children's toys.

Like you, I don't get why a movie like "Saw" isn't more highly restricted like the other movies you mention.

Well, I have a few objections to them violently slaughtering her. The point I was trying to make is how messed up those particular people's views are - they were enthusiastic about killing a girl for what amounted to a minor offense, yet they were against the essentially harmless display of some skin.

I'm not condoning anything here, but your comment makes it seem like you didn't even read the headline. The story is that he *won't* get the death sentence, but your comment is that this is "typical". Given your atrocious bigoted comment history when it comes to anything related to Islam, I'm not really surprised by your lack of critical thinking skills, but this seems poor even by your low standards.